The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the public prosecution of this case, on the ground that it is highly probable that the accident of this case was caused by the defendant's driving of a taxi in the front part of the victim's bridge in front of the taxi and the victim's head was faced with the right side side of the taxi, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the accident of this case was caused by the victim's accident in front of the cab at the point where the defendant got into driving a taxi in front of the center line, and the accident of this case did not fall under the "median accident under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Management of Traffic Accidents" because it is highly probable that it was caused by the victim who was driving a taxi in front of the cab and crossing the cab to the port side from the right side of the cab in order to overtake the cab which was stopped by the defendant.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, it is difficult to accept the fact-finding and judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Park Jong-gi, a field string, is a child protection vehicle in the prosecution, the first instance court, and the court below's decision. Since the accident site is the road of the first-way line, the vehicle behind the edge of the road is at the location of the accident so that it does not overtake the vehicle, so it is dangerous to overtake the vehicle. At the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, the stop point of the string was at a point that does not fall short of 30 cm from the center line, and the taxi operated by the defendant was forced to go beyond the central line in order to overtake the string.

However, according to the records, the width of the road of this case is 3.69 meters from the left side of the taxi to the right side of the 2.13m, the length from the rear side of the string to the right side of the 2.20m (the investigation record 96m) and even if it is based on the photograph (the investigation record 25m) near the site of the accident, the site of this case is mixed by illegal parked and parked vehicles. Even if it is based on the statement of the string, the vehicle was parked and parked in front of the 2000-ray at the time of the accident, but it is difficult for the court below to take into account the fact that there was a vehicle parked in front of the 3rd edge at the time of the accident, and it would be difficult for the defendant to completely overtake the 8rd-ray at least a certain distance between the string and the 2nd side of the string of the string to the right side of the string of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the statement of gambling leap in accordance with the facts charged, and held that the accident of this case does not constitute a 'central crime of traffic accident' under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents on the ground that it is highly probable that the accident of this case was caused by the victim facing the right side of the taxi in the direction of the right side of the taxi while the accident of this case was faced with the central line. It is reasonable to hold that it does not constitute a 'central crime of traffic accident' under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, because it did not exhaust all the necessary deliberations or mis

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)